Jobsworths swing for it

[Gob]

Council bosses are forcing the mother of a special needs child to remove a garden swing - because the family did not have planning permission.



Woking Borough Council has decided to issue an enforcement notice because the swing had been fixed to the ground - which officers said made it a development.

But mother-of-one Deborah Kandlekar, who lives in the house in Woking, Surrey, has hit out at the 'petty' move.

She said: 'I think it's ridiculous and it's like they are being anti-children and anti-families.

'The rear of the property has no grass, it's staggered, it's got steps. The floor is covered with tiled slabs and it is not practical for a swing.'

The mother-of-one has an eight-year-old daughter called Jasmine who has special needs. She said: 'She needs to be active. She needs somewhere to play outside.

'There was ground pegs with postcrete [a blend of selected sand, cement and additives for fixing posts] in place but it can be broken up with a spade and no one can even see it. It's been outside for one year and now it's fixed with nothing.'

In July 2013, a site visit was carried out in response to a complaint that a piece of play equipment had been located in the front garden, and the owner advised that it was temporary.

On January 7 this year, the council received a further complaint that the toy was in the front garden and a letter was issued stating that if the swing was not fixed it could be considered to be temporary - but because it had been secured to the ground, it was classed as a development.

A further house visit was made in March when officers saw anchor pegs and the cement had been used to secure the swing to the ground.

[Lord Jim]

In July 2013, a site visit was carried out in response to a complaint that a piece of play equipment had been located in the front garden, and the owner advised that it was temporary.

On January 7 this year, the council received a further complaint...

I think they ought to take the complainant and smack him/her upside the head with the swing....

[Joe Guy]

I would shoot the complaining neighbor or hit him/her with a shovel and then work to get that stupid law changed.

[rubato]

CCRs here in the US are far worse. More petty more punitive more pernicious.

Yrs,
Rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Then again... it is an "attractive nuisance" and may be played upon by other small children without the owner's supervision. Which of our legal chaps and chapettes here would like to represent the parents of a child harmed while playing on this swing? It is probably erected without proper playground equipment safety features - although anchoring is of course required for "public" locations.

As a private structure, anchoring is left to the parent and one may muse that were it located in the back garden without anchors there would be no problem. We don't know if the gardens are properly separated either front or back or if they are common areas.

The reason for planning permission is to control what excrescences homeowners believe they are entitled to put up. Today it's a small swing set and tomorrow someone else is putting up a much larger one, a see-saw, a roundabout, a small cucumber frame, a four-car garage and another house. All of them will point to this one and say "she didn't get approval".

Finally the "special needs" is just an emotional red herring. Apparently the child survived not having a swing for many years and can play in the front as much as she wishes. Jumping jacks, pushups, skipping, hopscotch on the pavement (sidewalk to USians) - it appears every other child in the neighbourhood doesn't have a swing. Doing without it isn't exactly a hardship.

Mum's probably scoring off the state for all kinds of things and once the nanny slaps a wrist it's just too, too unkind for words. In this case, they may cave in to all the hand-wringing

[Lord Jim]

Scooter, how did you manage to hack Meade's account?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I hear "God forbid!" from two countries. Well, the other one was probably 'Moloch' but the principle resonates.

[rubato]

"... although anchoring is of course required for "public" locations.

As a private structure, anchoring is left to the parent and one may muse that were it located in the back garden without anchors there would be no problem. We don't know if the gardens are properly separated either front or back or if they are common areas.
... "

That's an interesting point. We had a swing set when I was a kid. It was metal-pole framed and not anchored. Looking back it really was a bit dangerous. The seats were suspended by light chains which would wear through and break sending the swinger flying. And the lack of anchors meant that us male children could get it going until the legs would lift up and 'walk', aided by the flexibility of the metal. You could really get hurt on that thing.


But really, they should tell her to put up a fence (or her HOI company should) and leave her alone.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

As a private structure, anchoring is left to the parent and one may muse that were it located in the back garden without anchors there would be no problem. We don't know if the gardens are properly separated either front or back or if they are common areas.

Somehow, I think without anchors it would be far more dangerous along the lines rubato suggested; it's silly to condition approval on something as silly as anchoring to the ground--it should be anchored. The anchors here look temporary (like the ones I used for my kids' swingset)--it's not like she built a concrete pad or anything. I would guess the rules were intended to exclude things like picnic tables or lawn furniture from needing approval, but they should be thought out better.

And while I don't know the situation in Woking Borough, I will say in the US many HOA regulations are fairly ill thought out and basically just intended to prevent people from doing anything outside their houses--from specifying the colors of doors, drapes, blinds to preventing the planting of gardens. some associations are quite dictatorial, but the courts generally uphold their right to pass whatever rules they choose as the associations are voluntary (in the sense that you choose to live their) and not governmental.

[TPFKA@W]

I seem to recall it as somewhat of a right of passage in childhood to swing high and hard enough to get the swingset legs off the ground on one side. The thrill of the near tip over.

[Big RR]

I recall that as well; and when we got bigger we could swing hard enough to eventually work the anchors (or the concrete bases used to anchor each leg) out of the ground. That was usually the time the swingset was taken down, or we were told we could no longer use it (and it was reserved for our younger siblings). The other thing I recall was the urban legend of the kid who swung his/her swing entirely around the horizontal bar; I'm not even sure it was possible to do so, but we all tried again and again.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The chains make it pretty much impossible (human powered). As you slow approaching the apex, the chains go slack. It can be done with rods instead of chains

[Guinevere]

Honestly, the nosy neighbor NIMBY is the bane of the world. You know, roolz are roolz.


However, the good thing about most rules and regs is that they involve a process, and there is usually some discretion involved by those applying the rules, or some ability to vary the requirements of the rules. Let Mom come in and make her best case to the planning gods, and let them make a decision yea or nay.

[MajGenl.Meade]

During the council meeting on October 21, councillor Liam Lyons asked for some common sense to be used.

Cllr Lyons said: “What we are talking about is a child’s swing bought from Argos and as I understand it where it has been put would not constitute development if it had not been fixed in the ground with small cement footings, which is something the safety note which comes with the project advises to do.”

The site is an end of terrace property which is set back from the main road and there is an open plan front garden.

Cllr Lyons said: “I believe something as innocent as a child’s swing is not out of keeping with the street scene, but is in fact the thing we should be seeing in a pleasant family orientated residential community.”

Old Woking councillor, Louise Morales also supported this view. Cllr Morales said: “I had a swing when my children were little. They are quite dangerous if children begin to swing vigorously on swings.”

However, the question of whether this structure would encourage other families to place a swing in the front garden was raised.

Horsell East and Woodham councillor, Anne Murray said: “We are all thinking it seems a bit mean to ask them to take it down. Would it be alright if everybody had a swing in their front gardens, and that is what we need to be thinking about?”

Councillor for Knaphill, Saj Hussain added: “You have got a swing today, a slide tomorrow and roundabout the day after. We need to take officers advice.”

The enforcement action was granted by six councillors and Miss Kandlekar now has a month to remove the swing

Saj Hussain? Maybe he's worried this will be regarded as a Trojan swing!

[Big RR]

The chains make it pretty much impossible (human powered). As you slow approaching the apex, the chains go slack. It can be done with rods instead of chains

that was my guess as well; if they were solid bars it would be like the trapeze bars that can go around 360 degrees in the circus.

Would it be alright if everybody had a swing in their front gardens, and that is what we need to be thinking about?

“You have got a swing today, a slide tomorrow and roundabout the day after. We need to take officers advice.”

Think how horrible it would be if people made decisions for themselves; swings would lead to slides and even--gasp--merry go rounds (I presume that's what he is going on about, and not a round about in the road). That would be, what, democratic? Why kids might even have fun and be heard instead of just seen. Oh, the horror!

[MajGenl.Meade]

You lawyers.... .... you'd love it if parents put unprotected playground equipment all over the front lawns so kids get hurt and neighbours can sue each other... tush!!



A roundabout. As it happens, I got a serious injury on one of these. Kneeling on the board and scooting as hard as one could - my foot slipped beneath the board and was crushed between the wood and the cement (!) as it flipped end over end. Somehow I got five inches of foot to do a 180 in two inches of space. That hurt for weeks.

We used to call this one 'the Umbrella':



Can't remember what this one was called:

[Lord Jim]

Wow...

Look at those death traps...

[Big RR]

Meade--Well, being a lawyer who has never participated in a personal injury suit on either side, I would only "love" it for the joy it could bring.

That and the satisfaction of making tightasses like Murray and Hussain shut up.

Jim--not to mention the utter audacity of kids having fun.

[Lord Jim]

Thank God a lot of kids nowadays avoid all that and stay inside playing video games. Much safer...

ETA:

A phenomena that just might have a little more to do with childhood obesity than food being too cheap...

[Big RR]

True--look at that last picture--it looks like the third or fourth thing from the left is a disembodied arm; and that kid just over the center has--gasp--a bandage on his leg (and he's still playing on that thing). Urchins!! Damn kids!! Get 'em inside and out of sight.

All kidding aside, I'd like to go on that last thing--it looks like a lot of fun.